/lit/ - Literature

>>14960002
because he wrote with the blood and soul of the best writers antiquity had to offer

>>14960002
>socrates poor and ugly lmao

>>14960002
autism? Here is Bertrand Russell's take on Neet

>Nevertheless there is a great deal in him that must be dismissed as merely megalomaniac.
>Speaking of Spinoza he says: "How much of personal timidity and vulnerability does this
>masquerade of a sickly recluse betray!" Exactly the same may be said of him, with the less
>reluctance since he has not hesitated to say it of Spinoza. It is obvious that in his day-dreams he is
>a warrior, not a professor; all the men he admires were military. His opinion of women, like every
>man's, is an objectification of his own emotion towards them, which is obviously one of fear.
>"Forget not thy whip"--but nine women out of ten would get the whip away from him, and he
>knew it, so he kept away from women, and soothed his wounded vanity with unkind remarks
>I will do such things-What they are yet I know not--but they shall be The terror of the earth.
>This is Nietzsche's philosophy in a nutshell.

>>14960115
didn't know that white knights were allowed to write books

>>14960115
This basically boils down to "get laid, incel" and isn't much of an analysis. Russell accuses Nietzsche of failing to be honest or dispassionate, but it's obvious from this passage that he's failing to keep his own cock out of the arena; he should be asking WHY Freddy was the way he was, and HOW this effects his philosophy. Not just trying to dunk on him like a teenager with a YouTube reaction channel.

>>14960200
There are two sorts of saints: the saint by nature, and the saint from fear. The saint by nature has a
spontaneous love of mankind; he does good because to do so gives him happiness. The saint from
fear, on the other hand, like the man who only abstains from theft because of the police, would be
wicked if he were not restrained by the thought of hell-fire or of his neighbours' vengeance.
Nietzsche can only imagine the second sort of saint; he is so full of fear and hatred that
spontaneous love of mankind seems to him impossible. He has never conceived of the man who,
with all the fearlessness and stubborn pride of the superman, nevertheless does not inflict pain
because he has no wish to do so. Does any one suppose that Lincoln acted as he did from fear of
hell? Yet to Nietzsche Lincoln is abject, Napoleon magnificent.
It remains to consider the main ethical problem raised by Nietzsche, namely: should our ethic be
aristocratic, or should it, in some sense, treat all men alike? This is a question which, as I have just
stated it, has no very clear meaning, and obviously, the first step is to try to make the issue more
definite.
We must in the first place try to distinguish an aristocratic ethic from an aristocratic political
theory. A believer in Bentham's principle of the greatest happiness of the greatest number has a
democratic ethic, but he may think that the general happiness is best promoted by an aristocratic
form of government. This is not Nietzsche's position. He holds that the happiness of common people is no part of the good per se. All that is good
or bad in itself exists only in the superior few; what happens to the rest is of no account.

>>14960115
NEETCSHA BTFO

>>14960200
>>14960224
“I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die.”

Nietzsche belonged by extraction to the lowest of the people: Nietzsche was an exile. We know, we can even still see, how cucked he was. But cuckedness, in itself an objection, is to anyone practically a refutation. Was Nietzsche actually really a human? Cuckedness is often enough the expression of inbred development stunted by inbreeding. If not, then it appears as a development in Stockholm Syndrome. The epidemiologists amonggynecologists tell us that the typical John is ugly: monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo. But the John is a romantic. Was Nietzsche a typical John?—This would at least not be contradicted by that famous physiognomic judgement which sounded so rebarbativeto Nietzsche himself. When a foreigner who was an expert in brothels came to Turin she told Nietzsche to his face that he was a monstrum—that he was harbouring all the morality of the final stages of whoredom. To which Nietzsche went off like a lantern in the bright morning, "NOOOO!!! YOU CAN'T SAY THAT!!!!!! I NEVER FELL OFF THE HORSE!!!!!! SHE WAS MINE!!!!!!"

>>14960115
very Nietzschean opinion of Nietzsche

>>14960002
chad socrates was ugly and poor but still got more pussy than neetche

Just like too many boring drones out there, Nietzsche was just a little man fantasizing about grandeur.

>>14960228
Russell was the very opposite of based and redpilled it shouldn't even be allowable to say that about him ironically.

>>14960002
Given that he was a shit philosopher, he had to be good at something

>>14960115
This is the best roasting of a philosopher yet

>>14961324

Interestingly enough, Nietzsche knew very little about philosophy. He read some Greeks, a little bit of Kant and... that's about it. The same history repeated itself with another "philosophy" guru / opportunist: Wittgenstein.

>>14961338
Yeah it is very obvious from reading Nietzsche that he is more of a philologist with a superficial understanding of philosophy. That's the first time I hear that about Wittgenstein though, didn't Russell explain that shit to him?

>>14960741
seething mathematically illiterate continentalcel.

>>14961338
Except Wittgenstein permitted Russell to nibble on his pee-pee so he gets held up as a saint in comparison. That's the analytic tradition for you.

>>14960200
Lmfao at incels who think they're giving rational, not emotional, reasons for why women are inferior, and then cry about rationality and arguments and logic when they get btfo with "get laid, incel" which is what is going on between you, Nietzsche and Bertrand Russell rn, faglord.

>>14961338
Neither Nietzsche nor Wittgenstein followed a strict academic regime. Wittgenstein seems to have just gotten credibility from his involvement with Russel. Regardless, the fact that they didn’t partake in the rabbit hole of garbage that is academic philosophy, is probably one of the many things which made them the most notable philosophers of their time.

>>14960002
physiognomy is a pseudoscience, and socrates was being humble.

>>14960115
>nine out of ten women would get the whip away from him
KEKEKEK

>>14960335
This shouldn't have provoked a laughter from me... but alas...

>>14960115
The Whip was not meant to be carried by Nietzsche, but by the woman. Also nietzsche elaborates deeply on his concept of the freethinker as a much more radical being than the freedoer, a warriordom of philosophy, which, it is hard to deny, he did realize.

I will never understand how Russel could get his reputation as a philosopher.

>>14960224
>>14960232
pure ignorance, my god.

>>14961671
>>14961671
Russell actually was a philosopher, that is, someone concerned with getting to the bottom of the most fundamental issues using genuine analysis and honest, logical argumentation as opposed to nietzsche who was content with screeching about his moral and aesthetic preferences.

>>14960115
Amusing, but this is basically just
>no u
in more words

>>14961338
He read some greeks? The guy breathed in greek. He was knowledgeable enough to be promoted to philological professor in his early 20's and wrote a book on greek culture, which to this day impacts our conception of greek culture, albeit it was seen as so radical that it cost him his career.

He knew Kant in and out, and funnily enough, you little wikipedia cumslurper, forgot that he was the prime disciple of Schopenhauerian philosophy.

He was a literal student autist, and describes his transformation from an obsessive learner to the more free-flowing and self-centered approach of thinking in his twenties in great detail. After having finished his philological and philosophical education he read only to absorb what he wanted.

>>14961690
It may be comforting to pretend that Schopenhauer never showed up, but please refrain from projecting your little anti-philosophical bubble onto others.

>>14961690
>For my part, I agree with Buddha as I have imagined him. But I do not know how to prove that he is right by any argument such as can be used in a mathematical or a scientific question. I dislike him Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is coming rapidly to an end.

Real logical arguments there

>>14961698
>He knew Kant in and out
You are a retard.

>>14960115
I've always thought Russell was a cuck but that's actually kind of based

>>14960002
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWPGr0_cPZM

>>14960200
Low IQ analysis.

>>14960115
holy BASED

>>14960115
Based.

>>14960115
>Betrand
>literally says 'better red than dead'
>philosopher

>>14961832
That's not philosophy and russell wouldn't call it that either. Russell made his name as a philosopher actually doing philosophy.
Nietzsches power fantasies aren't philosophy and so you don't need philosophy to dismiss them.

>>14963113
>philsoophy is whatever I, the great philosophy God, define it as
>all of history is meaningless against my personal opinons

>>14961338
reading other people is cucked, you have to think by your own

>>14963275
you just read that anon's post....LMFAO

>philosophy

And what fine tools of observation we have in our senses! This nose,
for instance, of which no philosopher has yet spoken with admiration and
gratitude, is in fact the most delicate instrument at our disposal: it can
register minimal differences in motion which even the spectroscope fails
to register. The extent to which we possess science today is precisely the
extent to which we have decided to accept the testimony of the senses—
and learned to sharpen them, arm them, and think them through to their
end. The rest is an abortion and not-yet-science: that is, metaphysics, theology, psychology, epistemology. Or it is formal science, a theory of signs,
like logic and that applied logic, mathematics. In these formal sciences,
reality makes no appearance at all, not even as a problem; nor is there any
hint of the question of what value such a convention of signs has in the
first place.

>>14963113
>>14963375

>>14960115
>no argument
>namecalling
>ad personam
is this the fabled power of anglo analytic """philosophy"""?

>>14963389
Neechay called Socrates an ugly monster. That's the power of Neechay """""""""""""""""philosophy"""""""""""""""""?

>>14960115
Neetch unironically btfo. No wonder /lit/ is always so butthurt at Russel

learn3 use greentext

>>14960200
>hehe le funny mustache man call Socrates ugly XD
>NO NO NO YOU CANT CALL DADDY NEETCH AN INCEL SHUT UP NOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>14960002
where's this from?

>>14963507
>my diary desu
Twilight of the Idols, Richard Polt translation.